ArmyAviationMagazine-Oct13-Kelley

ARMY AVIATION MAGAZINE 38 OCTOBER 31, 2013

Historical Perspective - Employ-ment of aviation capability pro-vides tremendous impact to the

balance of forces on any battlefield as evidenced when balloons were intro-duced for observation and adjusting field artillery fires. The introduction of manned air-craft changed warfare and ever since, man has been designing methods of de-stroying the opponent’s aviation force. From installing machine guns on air-craft for direct action to the introduc-tion of man-portable surface to air mis-siles during Vietnam, the methods used to target aircraft continue to advance. Addressing this threat during the early days of aviation included design- ing aircraft capable of withstanding weapons effects. Most combat aircraft developers today will agree this is a course of action with diminishing re-turns. Exchanging fabric encased air-craft with sheet metal and wood struc-tures with titanium is fairly straight forward; hardening the aircraft struc-ture with full armor results in signif-icant size, weight, and power issues. Hence, today’s combat aircraft are designed with vulnerability reduction as a part of the engineering process re-

sulting in a more survivable scenario if hit with a weapons system. During the 1980s there was con-siderable discussion within the Army aviation community concerning sur-viving the hostile environment en-countered on battlefields. In the October 1984 issue of “Avia-tion Digest,” CW2 Charles Butler au-thored an article titled Threat Air De-fense. At the time, he was assigned to the Threat Branch at Fort Rucker, AL. In his article, he mentions “Knowl-edge of the enemy, knowledge of his weapons and of their capabilities” was something no aviator should leave home without. CW2 Butler lists Threat Air De-fense Countermeasure Rules, the first of which establishes the goal of deny-ing the enemy the ability to acquire targets. In closing his article he states “Though threat air defense should command our respect, it is hardly un-beatable. By realistic training, a true awareness of the threat and proper use of counter-measures, this giant can be cut to size.” CW2 Butler listed several passive and active counter-measures which continue to hold value today. The sur-

vivability scenario is enhanced with additional installed equipment capa-ble of warning the aircrew through de-tection and displays. Some of these systems provide de-coys to the inbound threat systems through automatic expendables or aircrew action. The development of these survivability systems is essen-tially a never ending process because advancements in threat systems is an ever evolving industry. The recent combat experiences dur-ing prolonged conflict in Afghanistan and Iraq have produced some mean-ingful tactical skills while at the same time allowed others to atrophy. These operations pitted Army Avia-tion against an enemy with limited sur-face to air capability. The integration of an advanced infrared threat counter-measure system produced a large pop-ulation of aviators more reliant upon systems and less reliant upon tactics. There seems to be a prevailing at-titude among many aviators today if you simply turn the aircraft surviv-ability equipment (ASE) on, it will take care of you. Certainly, our ASE systems have proven largely successful against an

Preserving Aviation Combat PowerBy CW5 Michael S. Kelley

SPECIAL FOCUS

Aviation Mission Survivability

An AH-64D Apache launching flares during a Man-portable Aircraft Survivability Trainer (MAST) test at Yuma Proving Ground, AZ.

U.S.

ARM

Y PH

OTO

BY C

W5 M

ICHA

EL S

. KEL

LEY

Agile. innovAtive. on-demAnd.Just like the special Ops we serve.

Not just anyone can keep up with the U.S. Special Operations Forces. Lockheed Martin provides global reach, logistics, and sustainment to support even the most demanding missions. With flexibility to satisfy evolving

requirements. And one-stop service to lower costs and keep them there. For more information, ask your contract officer about Lockheed Martin’s full-scope logistics and sustainment, or visit us online.

www.lockheedmartin.com/sofclss

© 20

13 L

ockh

eed

Mar

tin C

orpo

ratio

nIm

age

cour

tesy

of t

he U

.S. A

ir Fo

rce.

No

endo

rsem

ent e

xpre

ssed

or i

mpli

ed.

308-66453_Agile_AA.indd 1 8/5/13 3:53 PM

ARMY AVIATION MAGAZINE 40 OCTOBER 31, 2013

enemy with no air power or effective surface to air threat systems. Facing an enemy with advanced in-tegrated air defense systems (I-ADS) and a robust command and control ca-pability would most likely result in a catastrophic outcome.

Aviation Mission Survivability Training The Army Aviation Mission Sur-vivability (AMS) program is a holis-tic approach to preserving aviation combat power. During initial training as aviators at the U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence (USAACE) and initial readiness level progressions at the units, aviators focus on the tech-nical aspects of employing their as-signed airframe. Individual tasks are practiced and evaluated both in scope of the evalu-ator-trainee perspective and complete one task prior to moving onto the next. Once an aviator or crew member achieves readiness level one, they are partnered with experienced pilots-in-command and other aircrew as appro-priate. Following this, the unit surviv-ability officer begins to add scenarios to already scheduled training flights. Crew level training encompass-es the understanding of aircraft sur-vivability equipment capabilities and limitations, employment of the air-craft, and an understanding of threat systems. This relates specifically to

own-ship protection. Once all personnel are trained as in-tegrated aircrew the unit training ad-vances to collective scenarios. Collective scenarios should be relat-ed to the unit’s Mission Essential Task List (METL) and incorporated into every training mission. Command-ers should leverage their AMS officers (AMSO) to prioritize this effort. The most effective piece of aircraft survivability equipment on-board our aircraft is the aircrew. Scenario based training events with-in simulation and in the actual aircraft are critical to achieving reflexive im-mediate actions on contact, safely ex-ecuted with precision. Simply stated, tactics are used to deny our enemies the ability to effectively engage aircraft with threat systems. When tactics fail and the enemy gets a shot, it is imperative to properly identify the threat system being used and select the most effective maneu-ver to counter the threat system’s ef-fectiveness. Improperly identifying the threat system typically results in incorrect counter-tactics often exacerbating the threat risk. With weapon fly out times measured in seconds, aircrew must be trained to immediately identify threat systems based on ASE indications and visual signatures presented. They must instinctively select the proper tactics, techniques, and pro-

cedures (TTP) to prevent or mitigate weapons effects while keeping the air-craft safe from obstacles. This consideration is not limited to the aircraft whose ASE detected and declared the threat. Since all aircraft in a flight formation operate with essen-tially the same tactical employment techniques, the instinctive reaction is required for all aircraft in the flight re-gardless of which aircraft was initially targeted. Failure to employ this methodol-ogy may result in subsequent aircraft in the flight being targeted by threat systems. These tasks must be accom-plished during an engagement scenar-io where there is little time to contem-plate solutions. Therefore, the training scenarios must be presented in as close to real-world engagement solutions as possi-ble and include AMSO evaluation of the crew and collective responses.

Training Devices Designed to Enable Commanders The challenge for aviation com-manders is to refocus a cohort of sea-soned aviators, with over a decade of combat experience from counter-in-surgency missions to a decisive action fight. The desired end-state will be to maximize the preservation of aviation combat power while providing the ground maneuver force capable and continued lethal air support and robust re-supply capability. In order to achieve the desired end-state in a fiscally constrained environ-ment, commanders must rely upon simulation and aircraft embedded threat emulation systems to create re-alistic training environments with peer and near-peer enemy force structure. These systems must generate threat capability as close to real-world sys-tems as possible. The Aviation Combined Arms Tac-tical Trainer (AVCATT) was recently upgraded to integrate installed aircraft survivability systems, including hos-tile fire indicator (HFI). Fielding this capability provides aviation commanders the ability to train HFI in simulation prior to first unit equipped with the actual system. Threat system visual signatures were modeled with more realism mak-ing them usable to train aviators to ac-curately identify threat systems en-gaging them. There is a vast difference between

A Man-portable Aircraft Survivability Trainer (MAST) with Weapons Engagement Signature Simulator (WESS) engaging a UH-60 at Ft. Hood TX.

U.S.

ARM

Y PH

OTO

BY C

W4 D

AMIA

N BA

LTHA

SER

ARMY AVIATION MAGAZINE 42 OCTOBER 31, 2013

identifying a man-portable air de-fense system (MANPAD) in a picture to how it actually looks when fired. Commanders can use these systems to ensure assigned aircrews are fully trained as individual crews and collec-tively. The after action review (AAR) capability supports a discussion based evaluation of crew and collective re-action of an ambushed “aerial con-voy” or flight. The Man-portable Aircraft Surviv-ability Trainer (MAST) became a pro-gram of record in first quarter FY13. With its fielding to the combat training centers, participating aviation units now have a system which inter-acts with installed Common Missile Warning System (CMWS), providing declaration to the aircrews and a visu-al signature for positive reinforcement of confidence in the system. The MAST includes an adjudica-tion capability emulating a more real-istic probability of kill when CMWS is operational. In the article titled Combat Imper-atives Help 101st CAB Flightcrews Accomplish Mission found in the Ju-ly-September 2013 issue of Aviation Digest, the authors discuss critical el-ements concerning combat losses. The factors presented are, in part, due to lack of routine application of evasive maneuver techniques during training flights at home station. If the unit trains at a three to five rotor disk separation on all flights at home station, never building in ma-neuver room for the combat scenario, the potential to relearn these hard les-sons will continue. As aircraft advance with digital cockpit displays, bussed systems, inte-grated computer technology and gov-ernment owned threat emulation soft-ware the technology exists to place aircrews in a simulated threat environ-ment. These embedded devices would emulate threat systems and ASE re-sponses through multi-function dis-plays (MFDs) without having actual ASE systems installed. This threat en-vironment would not require expen-sive emitters or personnel. This capability will provide emulat-ed threat in the real world, creating the most realistic flight training scenarios during every training flight. This will provide commanders the ability to train against active threats programmed into the aircraft by the AMS officers.

Aircrew interaction with ASE dur-ing these events will emulate the real-world systems. Integration of this capability into the aerial gunnery pro-gram will provide realistic ASE dec-laration associated with the target as-signments. This survivability-lethality integra-tion will enable crews to train with all systems providing accurate indica-tions associated with target engage-ment scenarios. Prior to the bussed aircraft solu-tions, this integrated training capabil-ity with currently available govern-ment owned material and software solutions was not possible on Army platforms.

Achievable Goals Albert Einstein stated: “We can-not solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them.” Army Aviation’s approach to resolving survivability requirements on tomorrow’s battlefields falls within this description. Shifting from the Aviation Tacti-cal Operations Officer to the Aviation Mission Survivability program man-aged by the AMS Officer is the begin-ning of a complete solution. In the 1992 after action review for Operations Desert Shield and Des-ert Storm, Army Aviation identified units that did not begin training for the threat in earnest until after they were

deployed. A little over two decades after Operation Desert Shield/Desert Storm, MAJ Jamie LaValley provided an article to the July-September 2013 Aviation Digest titled “A Hard Lesson Learned” where he discusses the re-quirement for additional threat based tactical flight training throughout the aviator’s career. He later discusses weapons and tactics training, certifi-cation and instructor requirements. A comprehensive tactics and threat training program established within each aviation unit will provide the en-vironment necessary to inculcate air-crews with the instinctive skills to sur-vive combat environments. Establishing senior survivability officers as tactics evaluators through a training and certification process is es-sential to a long term solution. Clear measurement of crew and unit capabilities to engage in aviation operations in simulated combat envi-ronments will provide commanders a better gauge of their unit’s combat ef-fectiveness. The preservation of aviation com-bat power is the focus of the aviation mission survivability program.

CW5 Michael S. Kelley is the Branch Aviation Mission Survivability Officer, assigned to the U.S. Army Aviation Center of Excellence, Fort Rucker, AL.

An Aviation Combined Arms Tactical Trainer (AVCATT) screen shot of a missile engaging the CH-47D and the aircraft deploying countermeasures in the simulation.

AMSO

COU

RTES

Y PH

OTO

vv

We push the extremes in product performance, company responsiveness, and customer support. Our unique relationship between our people and our products was forged by tough use in extreme conditions – environments where failure comes at a high cost. We have an intensely singular focus on the demanding markets we serve. You might not need us in every situation, but isn’t it reassuring to know we are there in the extreme?

MyMiltope – Reliable in the Extreme.

Reliable in the Extreme

mymiltope.com MADE IN THE USA

HANDHELDS • LAPTOPS • TABLETS • SERVERS • PRINTERS • STORAGE • WIRELESS

Rugged Convertible Laptop Computer

RCLC-1

0300_MyMiltope Army Aviation Ad-Climber_X1a.indd 1 9/23/13 11:20 AM 9/23/13